[herpderperator]

When I visit that page I don't see an EV banner in my Chrome, version 76.0.3809.100. It seems like I'm meant to according to the document?

Edit: I see, it says it was revoked. Well that makes sense:

> Edit (April 29th, 2018): This site no longer uses an EV certificate. Comodo arbitrarily revoked — without any notice — the first certificate, saying this site was made with the intent to mislead. GoDaddy issued us a new one on 04/11/2018, but revoked it later that day, stating that the site was fraudulent.

So OBVIOUSLY the CAs are trying (maybe not as hard as we'd hope) to make sure EV is used responsibly, so why kill EV? Why not just improve the process a little bit more to make it unlikely to give an EV cert that clearly intends to mislead?

> It is notable that neither company believes they mis-issued the certificate.

What? They clearly revoked both and specified the reason, so does that not make the mis-issuance implicit?

[calebegg]

Comodo said the revocation was a mistake:

https://sectigo.com/blog/on-comodo-cas-recent-revocation-of-...

[iancarroll]

(This is my site.)

Comodo has told me that they would give me a new certificate if I wanted. Unfortunately, tax complications in Kentucky mean the legal entity no longer exists. Feel free to replicate it, though :)

The definition of "mis-issuance" has some contention, but generally it means that the guidelines for issuing the certificate were violated (Baseline Requirements, EVGLs, etc). No guidelines/policies were violated for those certificates.